MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146744268 · doi:10.1109/icdim.2008.4746716

Adaptive mean shift-based image segmentation using multiple instance learning

2008· article· en· W2146744268 on OpenAlexaff
Iker Gondra, Tao Xu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCluster analysisSegmentationArtificial intelligenceSegmentation-based object categorizationImage segmentationMean-shiftScale-space segmentationRelevance feedbackImage retrievalObject (grammar)Pattern recognition (psychology)Context (archaeology)Computer visionRelevance (law)Image (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mean shift clustering tends to generate accurate segmentations of color images, but choosing the scale parameters remains a difficult problem which has a strong impact on its performance. We present an adaptive image segmentation framework that achieves a task-dependent top-down adaption of the scale parameters. The proposed method can be used under the context of a relevance feedback-based content-based image retrieval system. Standard mean shift clustering is used to generate an initial segmentation of the images in the database. After processing a query, the user gives the usual relevance feedback by labeling each of the images in the corresponding retrieval set as positive or negative, based on whether or not it contains a particular object of interest. In our approach, this feedback obtained as a by-product of user interaction with the system is then used in conjunction with multiple instance learning to induce a mapping from the object of interest to the scale parameters. The initial segmentation of the object of interest in each of the positive images in the database is then revised. This is done offline and is completely transparent to the user. Preliminary results indicate that the proposed method is capable of learning more informed segmentation parameters.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207